Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Am Deleting the Blog

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#911

Post by panabee »

lliamander wrote: post #906
panabee wrote: post #897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one explanation: the policy exists and symbolizes the ideal for a news organization that prides itself on integrity and transparency. when this journalistic ideal conflicts with the practical concern of creating a story, the organization allows for discretion and trusts the writer to make an ethical decision. in the ISIS case, the article likely doesn't happen without the fighter's cooperation, so the writer must def…

> one explanation: the policy exists and symbolizes the ideal for a news organization that prides itself on integrity and transparency. when this journalistic ideal conflicts with the practical concern of creating a story, the organization allows for discretion and trusts the writer to make an ethical decision. There's no indication that the cited policy allows for such discretion. > in the scott alexander case, the…

to clarify, the explanation isn't condoning the reporter's behavior. it is simply trying to explain the behavior without assuming malice.

it's obvious that doxxing scott alexander is not necessary for this article. in fact, it's actually quite dangerous given the history of threats.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#912

Post by vb6sp6 »

macspoofing wrote: post #910
mshron wrote: post #642

I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed. Being famous is dangerous in every era, doubly so in an era where anybody unhinged basically has access to the same level of information you used to need a private investigator to get. Tim Ferris said it well: "T…

>I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed. Isn't it obvious that the upcoming NYT articles is going to be a hit piece with the goal of ruining his personal credibility and professional career. I hope to be wrong, but somehow I don't think so. >Being famo…

> Isn't it obvious that the upcoming NYT articles is going to be a hit piece with the goal of ruining his personal credibility and professional career.

I suppose if i had and axe to grind against NYT it might be "obvious". Even the blog author mentions it would be a "mostly positive piece". Where are you getting your information from?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#913

Post by newacct583 »

ksdale wrote: post #884
newacct583 wrote: post #534

I have to wonder why no one here seems to be ignoring the most obvious interpretation: Scott Alexander's identity is probably newsworthy. We might very well know him or her from other associations and the authorship of this blog would be notable and interesting. I mean, obviously it's not the case that newspaper policy demands identifying sources. The Times writes about anonymous people all the time. If this article…

His real identity is not particularly hard to find, and as far as I know, he is actually just a psychiatrist and the author of SSC (among other things).

That assertion seems rather at odds with "NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name", doesn't it?

Again, the idea that journalists routinely burn their sources as a matter of course is clearly wrong. Source anonymity is inviolate, especially at the level of papers like the Times. They just don't do what is being alleged here.

If they want to tell us who he is, it's because his identity IS the story.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#914

Post by vb6sp6 »

artsyca wrote: post #418
gringoDan wrote: post #394

Reading this made me think of two essays I've recently revisited. 1. The Sound of Silence, by Jessica Livingston Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves because the downside risk of being attacked for (misinterpretations of) their opinions are too high. People are wary of sharing useful information outside of trusted circles, which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those…

I'd say this forum is exactly this. How often have I self censored because I just don't want the downvotes?

Why do you care about fake internet points?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#915

Post by flak48 »

bonchicbongenre wrote: post #6

Somewhat related — does anyone know an easier way to cancel one's NYT subscription than going through the rigmarole of waiting for/talking with multiple "customer service" reps? After NYT's all-too-credulous parroting of Barr's mischaracherization of the Mueller report I tried to cancel mine, but spent over an hour on the phone with no progress, and gave it up. I should have persisted — I don't want to give them my m…

Created https://cancelnyt.net in case someone not aware of the Paypal trick (or not on HN/this thread) is still trying to figure this out

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#916

Post by young_unixer »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #855
kopochameleon wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly in https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/style/women-gaming-stream... from today they seem to possibly withhold discoverable legal names: > (The streamers did not provide their legal names to The New York Times. In years past, women gamers who have spoken out against the industry using their legal names have been subjected to further harassment, hacking and doxxing.)

One wonders what criteria the Times must be using to determine that it's worth putting Scott at credible risk for further harassment but not women gamers. Is the Times really more sympathetic to gamers than psychiatrists or bloggers? That seems like an unlikely policy, but what else could explain it? I'm stumped.

> Is the Times really more sympathetic to gamers than psychiatrists or bloggers?

It's more sympathetic to women than men. They won't directly tell you: "We protect women but not men", but that's the implicit policy of many institutions, especially mainstream media.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#917

Post by macspoofing »

vb6sp6 wrote: post #912
macspoofing wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed. Isn't it obvious that the upcoming NYT articles is going to be a hit piece with the goal of ruining his personal credibility and professional career. I hope to be wrong, but somehow I don't think so. >Being famo…

> Isn't it obvious that the upcoming NYT articles is going to be a hit piece with the goal of ruining his personal credibility and professional career. I suppose if i had and axe to grind against NYT it might be "obvious". Even the blog author mentions it would be a "mostly positive piece". Where are you getting your information from?

>I suppose if i had and axe to grind against NYT it might be "obvious".

Like I said, I hope to be wrong, but I am cynical about the motives of NYT, especially given this quote from the blog post: "He told me it would be a ___mostly___ positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation." (emphasis mine) - that's a reporter buttering up Scott Alexander to get a quote and compliance until the hit piece drops.

When that article drops, we'll see. If it is balanced and fair I will own up to being wrong. Gladly. I just don't thinks so.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#918

Post by sololipsist »

JohnBooty wrote: post #863
holtalanm wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been this way for a while. Outrage/cancel culture is an absolute pox upon our population that really needs to stop.

It reminds me of the (nearly cliche, but timeless) quote from MLK about riots: "I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard" I don't think anybody, even "cancellers," think it's a remotely ideal solution. But when groups go unheard, feel a system is unjust, and feel unable to change the system they understandably seek to go outside the system. Please note that I have specifically used the…

lol. The idea that people in cancel culture aren't literally the institution right now.

This is the hilarious thing about this worldview. As you people gain more and more power you have to keep positioning yourself as the underdog.

You're not the first ideology to do this, and you won't be the last. EVERYBODY sees right through this even though you all pretend not to... but most importantly the kids see right through it. This is why Gen Z hates millennials so much.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#919

Post by coffeemaniac »

groby_b wrote: post #858
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s multi-faceted. In some cases NYT (or any news org of any prevailing political inclination) might want to expose real names to exercise control or rally people to cancel someone. Other times it might be more mundane, just wanting a better angle for the story or more solid corroborative details. In the case of SSC I really worry that NYT would be trying to exercise control. They probably like many things written o…

Wait, did you just claim that the NYT is part of "the modern left"? If so, that's the funniest thing I've read in the last few years. The NYT is the home of bothsidesism. It's certainly not "the modern left". And as far as the NYT writing a hit piece to shut up a semi-popular blog, I'd suggest a quick reality check how much influence either has on public discourse. The idea the NYT would need to shut up SSC is just..…

[dead]

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#920

Post by radomysisky »

kerkeslager wrote: post #543

Damn. I've been reading Slate Star Codex for a long time, and he's always been one of the most insightful voices on the internet. I'm really sorry to see him go. After reading this, I looked up NYT's policy of using real names, and it turns out this isn't the worst time that the NY Times has done this[1]. I've long said that if you want to know who an organization serves, see where its money comes from. The NY Times…

NYT subscribers: to cancel your subscription online, change your address to California and a button will appear allowing you to cancel immediately. Unsubscribing won’t change much, as they can afford it. What will is freezing them out.

By RTing #ghostnyt you commit to not talking to NYT reporters or giving them quotes. Go direct if you have something to say.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt

Post reply on HN